Whose Body? (1923) by Dorothy L. Sayers

I read this book for the first time at university, over a decade ago (oh I feel so old writing that!). This is the first mystery in Sayers’ Lord Peter Wimsey series, and whilst I could still remember who did it, and certain parts of the killer’s plan, my recall for the rest of the plot was quite hazy. So, when I took my copy off my bookshelf, I was looking forward to refreshing my memory.

SPOILER WARNING – This post mentions information concerning the identity of the killer, so only read ahead if you already know the solution to this story.

Synopsis

‘It was the body of a tall stout man. On his dead face, a handsome pair of gold pince-nez mocked death with grotesque elegance. The body wore nothing else. Lord Peter Wimsey knew immediately what the corpse was supposed to be. His problem was to find out whose body had found its way into Mr Alfred Thipps’ Battersea bathroom.’

Overall Thoughts

Whilst he would change over time, as a character, Lord Peter Wimsey is launched in his debut case in the Bertie Wooster mould, (although he is arguably more knowledgeable and intellectual than Bertie). In a later mystery, Murder Must Advertise (1933), Wimsey is described by a character as being ‘like Bertie Wooster in horn rims.’ But back to Whose Body?, in the first scene we watch him going off to a rare book sale, only to have to return home because he left his catalogue. Yet he never makes it to the sale (don’t worry Bunter does!) as instead his mother phones him and asks him to visit the architect for her local church roof repairs, as it just so happens the poor man found a body in his bath:

 “I thought perhaps you’d like to run round and see him and ask if there’s anything we can do, I always thought him a nice little man.”

“Oh, quite,” said Lord Peter, grinning at the telephone. The Duchess was always of the greatest assistance to his hobby of criminal investigation, though she never alluded to it, and maintained a polite fiction of its non-existence.’

I think there is something quite Wooster-like in Wimsey getting his opening into a murder investigation via his mother, as Wooster often gets into scrapes and escapades due to requests from his aunts. I would say Wimsey’s speech often closely mimics Wooster’s, with him saying things you could picture Wooster saying himself. For example, when Wimsey wishes to express polite sympathy towards Alfred Thipps and the stressful day he has had discovering the body in the bath first thing in the morning, Wimsey says: “Hate anything tiresome happen’ before breakfast. Takes a man at such a confounded disadvantage, what?”

The dynamic between Wimsey and Bunter is enjoyable as always in this book and I liked reading again the funny little exchanges they share, which I had forgotten about. For instance, during one of Wimsey’s breakfasts we discover that Bunter organises his breakfast reading for him, and upon hearing the news from his employer about the latest murder case, Bunter responds: “Indeed, my lord? That’s very gratifying.” To which Wimsey replies: “Very, Bunter. Your choice of words is unerring.”

This short piece of dialogue also reminded me of how at the start of the series Wimsey regards sleuthing much more like a sporting game, an approach which causes him some emotional turmoil later in the book when he cannot ignore the consequences of his investigation e.g., consequences such as imprisonment and capital punishment. Nevertheless, before this stage, within pages of being brought into the case, Wimsey demonstrates another Wooster-like trait, which is to spout comic poetry/limericks. When his friend Inspector Parker from Scotland Yard comes to visit to discuss his own current case (that of a missing financier, Sir Levy), Wimsey is practically giddy with excitement when relating his own new investigation:

‘We both have a body in a bath,

We both have got a body in a bath –

For in spite of all temptations

To go in for cheap sensations

We insist upon a body in a bath –’

Yet interestingly, despite these comic interludes, the plot does not dillydally as Wimsey dives straight into the murder case with very little preamble.

The humour in this mystery is not only found with Wimsey and Bunter but in other characters too. I particularly enjoyed Mr Thipps’ unusual choice of priorities:

‘Girls will forget things, you know, my lord, and reely she was so distressed I didn’t like to say too much to her. All I said was: “It might have been burglars,” I said, “remember that, next time you leave your window open all night; this time it was a dead man,” I said, “and that’s unpleasant enough, but next time it might be burglars,” I said, “and all of us murdered in our beds.”’

It is the lack of self-awareness which makes this such an entertaining scene.

Inspector Parker is a great accompanying series character, who is friendly and cautious, but he is also prepared to deliver hard and uncomfortable truths to Wimsey when required. This re-read gave me a greater appreciation of him and I enjoyed the scenes he shares with Wimsey, such as when they are discussing the physiological evidence from the corpse in the bath, exploring the inconsistencies. Ultimately this discussion signposts the idea that there has been an attempt at obfuscation by the murderer.

Re-reading a mystery allows you to notice lots of random little details which passed you by the first time round and for me one of those odd details was air pollution, in particular soot. It is useful for Wimsey when investigating the crime scene, as it means he can notice some prints on the bathroom windowsill. Perhaps murderers need carry a brush and pan about their person when committing crimes? But it is also a menace in Wimsey’s eyes when it is around his own flat as open windows let the soot in, which in turn can damage his books! A horror I am sure all bookworms can sympathise with. Another aspect I noticed more readily during this second reading was the various gadgets Wimsey possesses which he uses for sleuthing. For example, he has a silver matchbox which is really an electric torch and a gentleman’s cane/stick which is marked out in inches so he can measure things. It also contains a sword and a compass.I thought these tools were all rather fun and were not overdone.

One of my favourite scenes from this mystery comes about because Wimsey has to lie to a suspect in order to gain their confidence. When interviewing a rich American businessman, he fabricates the story that his mother wants to invite him to do a talk at a bazaar she is running to raise funds for the local church roof. Alas he does not pass on any information about his subterfuge to his mother, who ends up in conversation with the businessman at a luncheon party. It is hilarious watching her play for time whilst she tries to work out what on earth the man is talking about and why he expects an invitation from her.

This scene is made more amusing when Wimsey realises his mother and the suspect are going to collide at the party and he tries to rush off to the luncheon to prevent a social calamity. However, for sartorial reasons Bunter delays his departure:

“Good God, Bunter, why didn’t you say so before? Have I time to get there before he does? All right. I’m off. With a taxi I can just –”

“Not in those trousers, my lord,’ said Mr Bunter, blocking the way to the door with deferential firmness.

“Oh, Bunter,” pleaded his lordship, “do let me – just this once. You don’t know how important it is.”

“Not on any account, my lord. It would be as much as my place is worth.”

This passage is also great at depicting the relationship between Wimsey and Bunter and where the boundaries are.

Something I noticed with my Agatha Christie re-reads earlier this year was that they gave me the opportunity to spot all the clues and red herrings that I had missed the first time round. I had a similar experience with Whose Body? as one of the first things I noticed was how in the first 10 pages of the novel, Sayers introduces the killer and the important nearby hospital location. Furthermore, the killer gets more than one early mention. For example, 40 pages in, Sir Julian Freke is revealed to be the man Sir Levy’s wife’s parents wanted her to marry instead and that he is friends with this woman still. And then only 20-30 pages later Freke crops up again as his new book receives a review in the morning paper Wimsey is reading.

Whilst it is good to see Sayers establishing her killer early (as it is annoying when the guilty party comes out of nowhere) I think perhaps Freke’s criminality is little too obvious. This is largely due to the case not really having any other substantial/creditable suspects and in a way this does cause some periods of slowness in the plot. Nevertheless, the killer reminded me of a character from one of Sayers’ favourite authors, Wilkie Collins who created a different type of villain named Count Fosco in The Woman in White (1860). He was different to the criminals and murderers you more commonly found in the melodramas of the Victorian era, as Count Fosco’s villainy is not signalled so heavily by his appearance or manner. Instead, he is socially respectable and has a reputation for being an intelligent and charming man. Yet underneath he is controlling, manipulative, scheming and deadly. And to a degree Freke embodies a similar role.

Around 70 pages from the end, I would say Freke’s guilt is pretty much confirmed by strong signalling in the narrative, and it is at this stage that Wimsey suffers from powerful PTSD symptoms which temporarily put him out of action. I found this to be an interesting dimension to Wimsey’s character and felt it added to the genre at the time and what it sought to do and what it felt capable of doing. I also wondered how WW1 veterans might have reacted to this part of the book. Are there any contemporary records on this matter? In addition, I thought Wimsey’s plight added complexity to the expected genre plot event of revealing and capturing the guilty party.

Overall, I would say the series characters, setting and social details are top notch. But I think the plot needed greater development in order to conceal the solution more effectively.

Rating: 4/5